Review: New Creation Eschatology and the Land, by Steven L. James

Just as we don’t really know what OT prophecy means apart from NT interpretation

I think this is the crux of the matter: Is the OT intelligible on its own? If not, what purpose did it actually serve? Why did God hold Israel accountable for it? And why didn’t Christ correct the multitude of misunderstandings of it? If so, why must we reinterpret it based on the NT? Why would prophecy be unintelligible but everything else would be? In fact, why would prophecies about Christ’s first coming be intelligible but prophecies about his second coming not be intelligible?

The dispensational position (and some others) believe the OT is intelligible on its own. We can believe it and trust it, just as Israel could. That does not mean we understand it fully. No one claims that. But to say that we don’t really know what it means seems strange. They knew it meant a Messiah born to to a virgin. They knew it meant restoration from captivity. They knew it meant the Messiah would suffer and have glory to follow. 1 Peter 1:10-12 spells out that they knew a lot.

I think this is a point where many are inconsistent on their OT hermeneutic. My guess is that Brother Barkman thinks the OT is abundantly clear on its own and needs no NT interpretation in many cases. Why he punts on certain aspects of prophecy is not clear to me.

A helpful read on this is Kaiser’s response to Enns in the Three Views on the NT use of the OT (or the OT Use in the NT … I can’t remember the exact title and am too lazy to look it up). Kaiser makes a strong argument that the apostles had to use the OT in a way that would be recognizable by the Jews. Here are a couple of key quotes:

The first New Testament believers tested what they had heard from Jesus and his disciples against what was written in the Old Testament. They had no other canon or source of help. How, then, were they able to get it right?

Thus, from a methodological point of view, reading the Bible backward is incorrect historically as well as procedurally. … [The early Christians] could not have tested what was established (and true) for them (possessing only the Old Testament) by what was being received as new (the New Testament). (Kaiser 2003, 26)

The early church could not have done what Greg says we must do. That is a major (and insurmountable, IMO) problem. They, in fact, verified the newer revelation (NT) by the older revelation (OT), not the other way around.

For Kaiser, the very fact that they used the OT to persuade their hearers means that their arguments from the OT could have been seen in the OT by those they were trying to convince. He argues that the apologetic value of the OT would be minimized if the appeal to it was clouded. If the Messianic meaning was hidden or less than obvious, “how could it have been persuasive for those considering whether Jesus was the one sent from God according to his plans for all eternity?” (Kaiser 2003, 22). If their intent was to convince people, particularly Jews, that the church was the next step in God’s plan (however that might be construed), it would not do to use the OT in a way that was unconvincing. The Scripture would need to be used straightforwardly, in a way that induced as little controversy as possible.

I don’t think it is that confusing if we simply read it and don’t try to complicate it.

The idea that DTs disagree on the NC is hardly troubling. There are all sorts of things people disagree on. If we discount a position because adherents of said position disagree on something, everything would get discounted.

If the church is party to the new covenant numerous questions arise among which are:

1. When was the church in bondage in Egypt and led out by the hand of YHWH?
2. When was the church party to the Mosaic covenant which they broke? If they weren’t party to the Mosaic covenant, then in what sense is the NC new?
3. Where is the rebuilt city existing in peace?
4. How can the church be part of Israel when God specifically declares he has made Jew and Gentile into one new man? (Not included into the old man of Israel.)
5. If Hebrews includes the church in the NC, why does it only cite part of the NC?

I don’t imagine these questions will generate any more discussion than they have in the past, but they are among the many issues that I have been unable to find convincing answer to.

Larry, I have time for a quick answer to your first post. The second is much longer and I don’t have the time just now.

Isn’t the doctrine of the Trinity stated clearly? Yes, if you are willing to gather several texts and analyze them deductively. No, if you insist upon citing one text that inductively states the doctrine of the Trinity in the language of the orthodox creeds.

[G. N. Barkman]

Paul V, you seem unwilling to allow any Biblical evidence unless it states the proposition in the exact words that satisfy you. Anything less is considered inadmissible, regardless of how a truth may be stated in words different from the ones you desire. At that rate, I’m surprised that you have many doctrines that you believe assuredly.

Greg,

You and I both know that the actual words of Scripture matter. You want me to believe that “this is the New Covenant in my blood” means the church either takes Israel’s place or at least joins the NC as a full partner alongside the houses of Israel and Judah. So, yeah, I call foul.

And I chuckle at the silly assertion that I must deny the Trinity because I refuse to argue like a reformed theologian. For the record, my argument for the Trinity is inductive, not deductive. The undeniable statements of Scripture compel me to believe that God is triune, not some commitment to a systematic theology textbook or creedal confession.

When was the church in bondage in Egypt and led out by the hand of YHWH?

1. The first question is telling only if Jer. 31 is the only passage on the New Covenant. But it isn’t.

But the NC isn’t less than Jer 31, is it? It specifically tells us who the parties are. That doesn’t change anywhere else, does it?

When was the church party to the Mosaic covenant which they broke? If they weren’t party to the Mosaic covenant, then in what sense is the NC new?

2. The Church is not a party to the NC, but it doesn’t have to be. The basis of the MC is the Ten Commandments, and nine of them are universally binding, and are repeated to the Church in the NT.

You are going to answer this differently because of your view of the NC. I am not sure what you mean by “basis.” I don’t think I would use it that way, but the Ten Commandments are the expression of God’s law for that time and people. The repetition of them in the NT is not because they are the 10 commandments but because they are part of God’s way of living. Those 9 existed prior to the MC. No one prior to Exodus 20 was allowed by God to worship something else, to make a graven image, to steal, to commit adultery, etc. The 10C was the codification of God’s law for a particular people at a particular time. We, as Christians, follow the 9, not because they are part of the MC/Law of Moses but because they are part of God’s created order.

Where is the rebuilt city existing in peace?

3. This is an example of Abrahamic and Davidic covenants being included and revitalized by the NC.

I agree. But it still has to happen, doesn’t it?

How can the church be part of Israel when God specifically declares he has made Jew and Gentile into one new man? (Not included into the old man of Israel.)

4. The NC is not just promised to Israel, unless you think Jer. 31 is the only NC passage. Other passages plainly include the Nations.

Eph 2 is different though. The Gentiles there are not included in the OT covenant people; they are strangers to the covenant, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel. They are not then included into the covenant people. There is a “new man” created—the church, not Israel.

If Hebrews includes the church in the NC, why does it only cite part of the NC?4

5. Because Hebrews is written to Hebrews, in my view it is not written to the whole Church, although many of its truths apply to the Church. It might be profitably viewed as the 40th OT book if you like.

This is an old dispensational view that I can’t affirm. It was written to Hebrews, but to Christian Hebrews—the church. But even that doesn’t answer the question. Why does it omit the rest of the NC? Even if we grant that it was written to Hebrews, not the church as a whole, we still have to answer the question of why it omits part of the NC.

We could answer with Dodd perhaps, that citing part of an OT passage is invoking the whole passage, though I am not sure that works here. It would be better, IMO, to say that he quoted only the part that applied to his audience. He didn’t cite the whole thing because he took the dispensational view that the whole NC was not applicable to the church for obvious reasons.

Paul H, if I will concede that I don’t have any additional examples, will you answer my question about how the doctrine of the Trinity is derived? (inductively or deductively)

I don’t have any examples at hand, and am too pressed for time to begin searching. So, to move the discussion along, let me concede that I made a general statement that I am not currently able to support. (Perhaps another time when things aren’t quite as busy.)

But, it seems the Trinity question is pretty fundamental to your point, unless I misunderstand what you are saying. I hear you to say that doctrine derived inductively is superior to conclusions arrived at deductively. I don’t think I am avoiding your point. I think I am answering it with an illustration about the doctrine of the Trinity. Without deductive reasoning, would we have this doctrine?

The question of which scriptural texts inform our understanding of the NC seems to be pretty significant. Different interpreters place different weight on a variety of texts, and this contributes to some of the difficulty in arguing the different views within dispensationalism. To me, Dave Frederickson’s contribution to Dispensational Understanding of the New Covenant is very helpful on this score. Promises made in the Abrahamic covenant, for instance, cannot be said to be “new covenant” blessings, yet that is exactly what many seem inclined to do. A little clarity on which texts reveal distinct NC elements goes a long way.

The New Covenant may, or may not be the primary example of dispensationalists failing to accept NT statements at face value. But it is obviously a major issue. The discussion on this thread pits two men, more highly educated and capable than I, against each other. Both claim to study the Scriptures using the same hermeneutic, but are seriously at odds over the inauguration of the New Covenant. Perhaps starting with the OT, and interpreting the NT in light of the OT is not so perspicuous as supposed. (My point? Perhaps this is because the approach is backwards. Maybe we should revisit our understanding of the OT in light of the NT. I know. I’m a glutton for punishment. I will get ready to duck.)

Perhaps starting with the OT, and interpreting the NT in light of the OT is not so perspicuous as supposed. (My point? Perhaps this is because the approach is backwards.

How would the early church have done what you suggest since they didn’t have the NT? Was there anything from the OT that they (and those before them) should have believed “at face value”?

How do you evaluate Kaiser’s statement above because he says the opposite, that it is backwards to require later revelation to interpret earlier revelation, precisely because the early Christians could not do that?

I would also press back on the whole idea that dispensationalists are failing to accept NT statements at face value. What is the evidence for that? It seems that the argument is based on two things: (1) Communion and the “new covenant in my blood” with respect to inauguration or participation of some sort and (2) the partial citation of the NC in Hebrews 8. Are there other lines of argument that are slipping my memory?

By taking the teaching of Jesus and the Apostles as their guide. (cf. Luke 24:27) Clearly first century Jews had difficulty understanding prophetic portions of the OT. They needed the coming of Christ to bring clarity. (And as much as I enjoy Kaiser, I disagree with him on this particular perspective. But he was a very interesting and engaging public speaker.)

By taking the teaching of Jesus and the Apostles as their guide.

But Jesus and the apostles didn’t address everything. And much of the apostles teaching came decades after the church had begun. So isn’t this clearly an unworkable option? To this day, much of the debate about the OT is because the NT doesn’t address it. If we are to take the teaching of Jesus and the Apostles as our guide, we are stuck with no options.

Furthermore, this doesn’t address the OT generation, who were expected to understand and live their lives by this revelation without benefit of any of the teaching of Jesus and the Apostles.

(cf. Luke 24:27) Clearly first century Jews had difficulty understanding prophetic portions of the OT. They needed the coming of Christ to bring clarity.

Was is that they had a difficult time understanding or was is that they didn’t believe? Jesus did not rebuke them in Luke 24 for lack of understanding but for failing to believe all that the prophets have spoken.

Might it be that our problem is not lack of understanding in some of these things but failure to believe what was spoken? As I said earlier, I think we have really overcomplicated this because … well, who knows. Is it really that hard to believe that there is a future for national Israel when the NC is fulfilled with them? Why is there so much objection to that? Yes, it’s a simple solution, but why is that bad?

No, Jesus and the Apostles probably didn’t address everything. That’s why I said the early Christians took their teaching as their guide. (Of course, we can’t be sure they didn’t teach verbally more than is recorded in Scripture.) But surely you don’t intend to assert that the Apostles teaching didn’t come until decades after the church began. The Apostles were teaching immediately after the church began. Peter’s sermon at Pentecost is an example, and his treatment of Joel’s prophecy is an early indication of how the Apostles treated OT prophecy. The Apostles early teaching became the basis for NT doctrine beginning days after Christ’s ascension.

Furthermore, Jesus and the Apostles didn’t have to address everything. A dozen examples of their handling of OT prophecy is a helpful guide to interpreting the rest.

But surely you don’t intend to assert that the Apostles teaching didn’t come until decades after the church began.

In some cases it didn’t come until decades after, particularly probably Hebrews that is being appealed to here.

Peter’s sermon at Pentecost is an example, and his treatment of Joel’s prophecy is an early indication of how the Apostles treated OT prophecy. The Apostles early teaching became the basis for NT doctrine beginning days after Christ’s ascension.

Yes, and I would argue this is strong evidence for a dispensational view. The fact that the NT apostles used the OT so widely and freely indicated that they believed that their “new teaching” could be easily seen in the “old teaching.” Again, it would not do to use a text in a way in which every Jews would say, “No, that’s not what it says.”

A dozen examples of their handling of OT prophecy is a helpful guide to interpreting the rest.

This actually depends on what ones thinks the apostles were doing—whether operating by exegesis or revelation. Here I will commend the articles of Longenecker (“Can We Reproduce the Exegesis of the New Testament?”) and Walton (“Inspired Subjectivity and Hermeneutical Objectivity”).

Longenecker says, “Apart from a revelatory stance on our part, I suggest that we cannot reproduce their pesher exegesis” (Longenecker 1970, 36). He further affirms that “Our commitment as Christians is to the reproduction of the apostolic faith and doctrine, and only secondarily (if at all) to the specific apostolic exegetical practices” (Longenecker 1970, 38).

Walton says, “The NT authors never claim to have engaged in a hermeneutical process, nor do they claim that they can support their findings from the text; instead, they claim inspiration … For the NT authors, the response to the question “Why should I believe that” is that they got the information for their interpretation from God … If you have inspiration, you do not need historical-grammatical hermeneutics. If you do not have inspiration, you must proceed by the acknowledged guidelines of hermeneutics.” (Walton 2002, 70)

The primary issue here is that of authority: By what authority does a preacher say what he says? By what means will he attempt to convince an audience to agree with him? It seems that the fundamental answer to this question must be “the text.” A message can be authoritative only if it can be shown that it is what God said in that particular text. To appeal to imagination, however “Spirit-led” it might be, is ultimately to place the authority in the mind of the interpreter, in this case, the preacher.

We must remember that the NT authors’ goal was to convince their readers that Jesus was the Christ of God, sent for the salvation of the world. To prove this with an illegitimate or unapparent use of Scripture would hardly have been convincing. The Scriptures continually appeal to the OT for its authority by using phrases like “It has been written” (e.g., John 6:45, Rom 3:10, Rom 9:13) or “As the Scripture says” (e.g., Rom 9:17, 1 Tim 5:23, Jas 2:23). Such appeals only make sense if it can be shown that “it” has indeed been written or has been said in the Scriptures. After all, if the Christological interpretation was hidden, “then how could it have been persuasive for those considering whether Jesus was the one sent from God according to his plans for all eternity?” (Kaiser 2003, 22).